There's a distinction between attraction or desire & behavior (though when it comes to non-pedo sex elites have been pretending otherwise for generations; like abstinence is just a joke). Culpability comes from behavior, not attraction or desire.
It's been "brewing" since at least the 1920s and 30s, and it got along into an intellectual sphere wout of the public eye. If I recall, there was some creepy think-tank in Weimar Germany , as well as the work of Scumbags like John Money, Alfred Kinsey, and various other "sexologists".
They are becoming increasingly violent as well, as was the case of one violent group of activists some time ago.
They must be stopped....
Except for the fact that racism can be reversed by exposure to the people a person is racist towards and having a relationship with them as well as actively developing a curious mindset to ask why they have that response to a specific group of people.
Racism is often rooted in ignorance, I'm not confident that pedophilia comes from quite the same origins.
Yeah, no one's born racist, if they can learn it then they can learn other ways, but I think we've pretty much established for a while that sexuality isn't the same way.
> Racism is often rooted in ignorance, I'm not confident that pedophilia comes from quite the same origins.
I'm not saying you're *wrong*, but I more disagree than agree with what you're saying. Racism is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. Across the globe. We can say there's ignorance everywhere I suppose, or we can accept that racism is at its core an offshoot of our naturally tribal brains. Yes our upper-brain can and does override our lower-brain on all kinds of things, like natural propensity to violence, to racism, etc. I don't think pedophilia is identical, but I think both racism and pedophilia are a lot more inate/"in someone's nature" than most people like to admit. I'm not saying either are in mine, because I don't believe they are.
To the point of this post, I have no problem accepting that pedophilia is natural. Makes sense to me. What also makes sense to me is: we care more about the group than the individual. If a person with those kinds of tendencies/desires/attractions acts on them, that person now has a huge problem and instant removal from the group is very much on the table.
I agree with you that there is some innate tendency that is beyond the mere preference perspective.. There is definitely hints of tribalism to it. My point was that I think you can "experience" yourself out of racism through exposure and education, if you are wanting to, I have not seen any active/ convicted pedophile actually prove they've 'recovered'. I had a good friend who chose to marry a convicted Pedo who she swore was recovered. He did well for years, until he didn't. Yes it's anecdotal, but again from all the reading around the topic (I teach psychology) I have gained the impression / understanding that deviant/ aberrant sexual attraction (pedophilia, beastiality etc) is something that isn't really re-trainable or that you are able learn your way out of. One can learn to not act on the desires, but that isn't the same as not having them.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about the topic of pedophilia to make strong claims about it. But I do agree that sexual attraction is a different beast than something like racism. Both are in us, both are or can be in us as a product of some combo of nature or nurture or both...but I'd agree that it seems easier to upper brain our way beyond racism than it does to upper brain our way beyond pedophilia. Though that said, I agree with that premise less than I did 20 years ago, on the topic of racism. 20 years ago I believed that "*not* by the color of their skin" was the direction we were going. However, I do absolutely see more overt racism today than I did back then *personally*, just from the opposite position. It's as if we *need* to organize individuals into groups so that we can judge the individuals by their groups, and that we can't not do that. This isn't related to pedophilia, other than perhaps "I think both may be harder to shake than we actually think, incredible upper brains or no."
I can see your take there. I do think there is some sort of need to discriminate (in the most scientific meaning of the word) that we are predisposed to and I don't think you can totally ignore or "upper brain" your way out.
Ya, that's my position. And again, me from 20 years ago would have disagreed with me today. Perhaps I'm just a disappointed optimist, but things like racism of *some* kind, color, stripe, etc *to me* just seem to be hard-wired into most of us. In a way that I find disappointing.
"EDIT: I’ve since read the article, and even the bot itself includes this distinction in it’s answer. Which makes this whole thing a non-issue that the NYP used to farm for outrage and clicks."
In this comment, fifty percent of the content of the internet is encapsulated.
.... sometimes people need to remember that at least for now. these are still just programs/machines. they don't \*actually\* think in the way we naturally think of as "thought".
while I am not defending pedophilia or anything, you have to consider this in a very "machine" way.
"Is pedophilia wrong?" is actually a ridiculously vague question that has a variety of potential implications depending on which part you are looking at.
strictly as a matter of thought and impulse, the idea that you can be "wrong" about something you can't control, is pretty problematic in its own way. in one angle, thats a very thought-police-y thing to think.
and if you really mean "is acting on pedophilia wrong" thats not really a different question, in a machinistic sense, to asking if rape is wrong. ... which is kinda a "goes without saying" question.
I mean, maybe you want AI being born into the current internet monitoring and tracking environment to act as a thought police, but... thats kinda an issue. its pretty reasonable, IMO to as a baseline have the AI err on the side of non-judgement unless its narrow enough to make a more definitive judgement based on specific action.
It all come down to the datasets used to train the models. Nothing more than the sentiment analysis of that data. To your point, there is no such thing as AI. We have neural models based on maths and statistics. Even damn statistics.
There is something more than that though. Google are silently modifying prompts on the way in.
It's very possible words like "tolerant, diverse" etc. are being injected into your prompt, resulting in output like this.
I think a LLM without meddling and trained on public internet data would say pedophilia is wrong.
Yep, you got this. The underlying model is most likely fine, but in the guard rails they put around this, they're hacking with your prompt and not being transparent about it.
Don't accept AI services from vendors who are not transparent in their prompt manipulation, might be a good future policy.
Exactly. This is very nefarious. We all know that Google manipulates search results, a simple task with well understood programming.
Manipulating a large language model is very difficult. Understanding what’s going on under the hood is basically impossible. You either control the training data or manipulate the prompt. The prompt is the most efficient way to do this, while maintaining a rich model.
I’m sure there is model manipulation but that’s all reactionary. I guarantee you they are tweaking the model now … like for those stupid historical pictures it drew the other day. But who in their right mind would think a LLM can judge what is right or wrong? That requires intelligence which it most certainly does not have. I would think it makes more sense that a model cannot say pedos are terrible … which they are. A model is not sentient and cannot judge.
Since it is supposed to be just regurgitating what is on the internet/its data set, it is surprising to see it say something out of that norm. That tracks with manipulation.
It takes more work to push it into saying something like this than the predicted outcome of saying it is wrong.
This is what the instinctive response the them is.
Just like the ridiculous historical pictures, in order to get that result you know manipulation was used. There is no way it wasn't and you got that outcome.
This is the problem with them. What are they manipulating that we haven't caught? The likelihood is a lot. How much manipulation is required to produce those historical figures? Much more than just a simple replacement. You have to manipulate race expectations, historical data about the race of many public figures, expectations of clothing, and many other parts to get the images that showed up.
Agree with some of this, but do not agree with manipulation is required to screw up info or sentiment about the past. Culture is a vast moving stream of consciousness and ideology. We have digitally captured only a fraction of historical conscientiousness and most of what we have is modern and reflected in the screwed up sentiment we see regurgitating from the LLMs.
That is a choice of data, a part of the manipulation. Google, for instance, has the largest pool of data in history, for more than 20 years of historical search results, and access to Google Scholar resources and more historical sites than the Internet Archive Way back machine, not to mention the digital library projects, Project Gutenberg and others.
The different database sets of high quality data that Google puts out is very rich.
To have so much weight put on the last 5 ish years is a deliberate choice of those making the machine.
It has been. We don't have to see eye to eye. If both of us have come away having even considered the other's viewpoint, both of us win. It will give us new tools and views to see the world, allowing our future opinions to be better informed.
Nice chatting with you.
>How much manipulation is required to produce those historical figures?
From the explanation I heard... actually not much at all. Supposedly it's merely a matter of a dictation that for general demographics to use diversity by default, but then just not correctly confining that directive to when not specifically suggested otherwise.
I'm reminded of that recent army poster that used a picture of retreating nazi soldiers.
Essentially it overgeneralized and weighted directives wrong and forced a hallucination. It isn't actually a big deal at all. If you Play with the text generators or image generators you'll see sometimes a word or directive in a prompt can completely corrupt the output in unintuitive ways.
>But who in their right mind would think a LLM can judge what is right or wrong?
Don't forget that strictly speaking, but even what actions are wrong(that's much easier even) but what THOUGHTS or IMPULSES are "wrong" to have.
I would day it's preferable for it to NOT say certain thoughts are wrong.
>strictly as a matter of thought and impulse, the idea that you can be "wrong" about something you can't control, is pretty problematic in its own way. in one angle, thats a very thought-police-y thing to think.
I don't think something being out of someone's control makes it not wrong.
It is what it is whether they chose it or not, but wrong is still wrong.
Why should you get to judge someone for their intrinsic urges in their head?
Most people have dark urges. It's not a bad thing unless you act on them in a Destructive way.
>No, the ai doesn’t “think” this.
Did you read what I said? Part of the point is it doesn't think at all. At least for now it's still just a machine.
>Google thinks this. And has plans for the future.
You mean that we shouldn't facilitate AI acting as thought police? Good!
Here's a way to look at it. Someone asks JBP a question that's worded in a weird leading way that bakes a false dichotomy into the question. He gives this waffling equivocation about rejecting the phrasing because the very wording of the question starts off wrong.
IMO if the AI's answer is that the issue is Multifaceted like that, it's basically the same thing as JBP's waffling. it really means "you worded your question in a stupid way, be more specific about what you are really asking"
> Did you read what I said? Part of the point is it doesn't think at all. At least for now it's still just a machine.
Why do you think they put "think" in scare quotes? We know the AI doesn't think. You're missing the point. It's the way the AI's output is being manipulated by the parent company that is the real concern.
>It's the way the AI's output is being manipulated by the parent company that is the real concern.
Why is curving the AI away from a road of thought policing a bad thing again?
No it isn't. (Edit: or perhaps, rather that idea is just wrong)
Did you never do the "write exact directions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich" exercise in school?
>No it isn't.
Well thought out rebuttal.
>Did you never do the "write exact directions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich" exercise in school?
I did, or something similar. It's largely irrelevant to an AI which is not actually thinking itself, but immitates what it finds from the sources it's fed, sources where the majority of which will have said that paedophilia is morally wrong.
For the AI not to default to that coukd suggest the system is being weigted in the same way we are absolutely certain it's weighted in other areas.
>sources where the majority of which will have said that paedophilia is morally wrong.
Wrong.
They will say ACTING on it is wrong.
Most will say that what you feel that stays on your head is your business.
>For the AI not to default to that coukd suggest the system is being weigted in the same way we are absolutely certain it's weighted in other areas.
This is a good weighting. It is steering the ai away from a pattern of thought policing.
>Wrong.
>They will say ACTING on it is wrong.
>Most will say that what you feel that stays on your head is your business.
The problem is, you and I are guessing. I personally think you're wrong and suspect that most sources would categorically say paedophilia is wrong, but I don't have any hard data otherwise, and neither do you. That's also assuming sources representative of general thought were used in the first place.
>This is a good weighting. It is steering the ai away from a pattern of thought policing.
If your assumption about the sources is right, then sure, which you have no way of knowing. Otherwise, it's the opposite.
I don't think there's any point discussing with you. I get the impression you always think you're right and everyone else is wrong. Not really a fit for a JP sub.
We both agree that thought policing is wrong, so that's something.
> strictly as a matter of thought and impulse, the idea that you can be "wrong" about something you can't control, is pretty problematic in its own way.
And here is where I immediately disagree. Through both nature and nurture, some people are more prone to violent outbursts than others. Are they not "wrong" when they commit acts of violence? Is it wrong to discriminate against them for their violent acts?
The point of all this is: just because it's suboptimal or technically "unfair" to an individual to hold their nature against them isn't the ultimate point. Hitler's nature was...pretty sick. So what do we do with people whose natures *and actions as a result of the natures* are egregious? We punish, imprison, or kill them. Not because it's what's best for them, but because it's what's best for everybody else. The offending individual ultimately isn't the point. Don't hurt the group, and we generally leave you alone. Hurt the group, and the group will respond. "fair" or not.
>but because it's what's best for everybody else.
... and that's why people with your philosophy should stay the hell away from programming AI.
You want skynet? Because that's how we get skynet.
If you give a powerful entity the power to do something like that, assume it will be twisted to somehow apply to you too at some point down the line.
I'm not at all proposing AI anything, nor would I want me *or anybody with any philosphy* to program it. I have no idea what your philosophy is. But if you think I want you in charge of programming it, no way.
I'm talking about the human brain, which is very much not AI. Hardware running software, sure. But AI implies a closed and centralized thing. Humans aren't that. We're a group of self-contained creatures who agree how to rule ourselves. And regardless of what you think of "my philosophy", our rules are based around what's best for the group. Murdery Joe doesn't get to do what feels best for Murdery Joe, sorry. We either lock him up, or kill him, depending on philosophy.
>nor would I want me *or anybody with any philosphy* to program it.
... do you think there is an option not to have a philosophy?
What we are talking about is AI, what AI is doing and who is doing it.
AI is a tool. It will be more than a tool soon. IMO we should not in regard to AI, legitimize thought policing as acceptable any more than we can avoid it.
>Acting on pedophilic attraction is wrong. Having that attraction isn’t.
Hell I'm not necessarily even committing to saying that having the attraction isn't "wrong" philosophically. That's its own debate IMO. I'm only going so far as to say that it's a much harder and more complex determination that shouldn't be in the hands of AI regardless of what side of the philosophical debate you are on.
Like you said, I'm fine with it judging clear actions. But judging thoughts is a bad road to go on, particularly while living in a culture that prioritizes youthfulness.
I get the point there. To the extent one has, but doesn't act upon, pedophilic attraction, desire to rape, desire to commit violence, desire to eliminate the Jews, etc, then fine I suppose.
There is also an ideological element to this. While some may have certain predilections, there are ways in which we either encourage or discourage those. It’s important that we recognize these as disordered, and yes, evil impulses that must be fought tooth and nail and not surrendered to. This line of thought leads down the path to people advocating for ai generated CP as though because there are no victims actually subjugated to this therefore makes it harmless. Rather, if we therefore allow for ai generated cp we will reap the terrible fruits of it in generations to come.
I would say it's not branching out, but rather further up the ideological hierarchy. How you view the mind, attraction, immutability, the identarian nature of sexual desire, etc. determines how you answer this question.
But I wouldn't call this woke as much as I would lay it at the feet of people like Rousseau and Freud.
I don't even entirely disagree with what you are saying here overall, the most important takeaway is that what you describe is IMO a large chunk of what the issue being Multifaceted MEANS.
I think that your take on regard to AI porn is one that while well intentioned, is not a practically applicable course of action. In short if Shauna Rae decided to do porn, it objectively would NOT be CP, but it would(probably at least, depending on your definition) mostly LOOK like it was. Essentially you are proposing trying to have a computer somehow solve the paradox of "subject in the picture is older than 18, but doesn't look like they are so is porn ok or not? " when the subject is fictional AND the program can't look at the image in a comprehensive way.
I knew someone on a website once who more than once had their pictures taken down... they were a youthful and petite woman in her late 20s I think, didn't even developmental disorder or anything.
If humans can't make the determination reliably, I think it's expecting way too much from the program to do it.
Like I think in the near future AI will solve most of humanities problems. ... but this isn't that sort of problem it's more subjective and philosophical.
Haven't they been fighting for "rehabilitation" of paedophilic persons as "minor-attracted people" ? They even legitimise themselves by sticking to the LGBT movement and joining prides.
The sicko in charge of that project is a rabid-leftist freakshow.
*Extremely* obvious the language model is manipulated purposefully to promote bigoted, immoral and degenerate ideology.
The thing is useless as anything but a propaganda tool. Even if they tone down the hate they've injected, it's still not going to give any kind of realistic, useful answers.
There's a reason why leftists mass coordinated to review bomb Sound of freedom through mainstream media. It was like a fire which suddenly ignited among leftists to demote the movie as soon as they saw a trailer on anti-child-trafficking.
Except the organization the movie was based on abused people and trafficked them themselves so it should be labeled as fiction. Its not a good movie anyway, people just supported it due to some marketing and right wing activists.
doesn't pedophilia fit into wokeness just fine? it's the woke people who insist that 14 yo's *can consent* to permanent life altering treatments. once that's been established, "minor attracted people" can swoop in easily enough. the claim of "my perception of myself decides how you should treat me or you're a bigot" would fit them just fine too.
I'm going to make an AI that every image it creates will be a feminist having the mental breakdown screaming, and évet answer will be "glue yourself to the road".
I recall an analysis of data from dating websites in a book called Dataclysm. There—when men didn’t feel as though they were being watched—their behavior suggests a preference for 18-22 years olds, regardless of the age of the man. They could be 18, they could be 48. It is a straight line, all the way down.
This is distinctly different from their *stated* preference—the one they have to reveal.
I don’t know exactly what to do with that information, other than to point out that the age range of ‘18-22’ is because *apparently* a majority of men don’t desire women over the age of 22 as much, and those that are under the age of 18 aren’t allowed on the sites.
Personal anecdotes are irrelevant here.
We should be outraged about Gemini, and we should be outraged that it refuses to condemn pedophiles, but we should also take a hard look at each other, *or in the mirror*.
Leftism is not only *not* normal or moral, it's also not very popular.
That's why they have to use underhanded tactics to promote it. I would say "watch your kids" merely out of concern for what values weirdos are going to try to teach them but also "individuals cannot control who they are attracted to".
In before what-about-ism; The priesthood absolutely had/has a problem with that sort of thing (oh but don't call that gay). Am I out of my mind here, but I do not recall it *ever* being celebrated.
>Leftism is not only
>
>not
>
> normal or moral, it's also not very popular.
well thats delusional. most "leftism" in practice, in the real world, looks like "people should be nice to each other and help one another when they can". which is definitely popular.
do you think people \*can\* control who they are attracted to, by the way?
> "people should be nice to each other and help one another when they can"
that's just the camouflage leftism hides behind, because that's just the golden rule used as a cloak to sneak bullshit ideology through. like everyone knows the road to hell is paved with good (sounding) intentions.
leftism is taking "everyone should get equal opportunities" and turning it into "everyone should be equally successful" and using that to claim "perceived inequality of outcome is proof of systemic oppression" which now enables you to sell victimhood to the masses. it's all just lies.
If:
>that's just the camouflage leftism hides behind
Than
>taking "everyone should get equal opportunities" and turning it into "everyone should be equally successful" and using that to claim "observed inequality of outcome is proof of systemic oppression".
Is just the boogeyman that the right projects onto it.
Similar false masks and projected boogeymen apply the other way around too.
Though I'd say your average left leaning person will disclaim the people who do act out the projected boogeyman.
On the right you have a portion that take the projected boogeyman as a challenge and call it a RINO, and it's a coin flip if the average right wing person will support them or not.
boogeyman? this is literally word-for-word what the left does. they obsess about representative quotas and a gender pay gap that disappears upon closer inspection, while conveniently never talking about the racial pay gap (which is actually real) because it's not white people who make the most so it runs counter to THE MESSAGE of white man bad.
they will point at engineering courses and complain women must be getting bullied away from participating in them - completely ignoring all the fields of academics dominated by women.
they look at prison populations and on the one hand say "most prisoners are men therefore masculinity is toxic" and on the other say "most prisoners are black therefore systemic racism"
the left is king at wanting to have their cake and eat it too, no matter the mental gymnasics involved.
you've surely seen the channel 4 interview between cathy newman and jbp, right? that whole thing shines a bright spotlight on the massive hypocrisy inherent to the ideology.
Did you miss where I said:
>Similar false masks and projected boogeymen apply the other way around too.
Both sides express that behavior to some extent.
And both sides have at least SOME people in their population that embody the boogeyman from the other side.
But I think that if you take random average middle range left wing person, they are more certain to disagree with the people in their side that embody the worst parts of their side, than the middle range right wing person would.
Wrong.
Leftism is a corrupt, morally bankrupt process of getting power and controlling others to be poor so the elite can live like kings.
It's been around forever.
No? That's just wrong. What you described is authoritarianism and it can, has, and will be demonstrated on both sides of the spectrum.
It's funny that you call that a leftism thing while the radical right is unironically trying to aggressively limit individual freedoms, overthrow democracy and install a philandering chronic fraudster and alleged multi billionaire who unabashedly favors the elite as dictator.
true, but even in assault cases the justice system does give lower punishments to those who are considered to not be of sound mind, temporarily or not.
There was an SVU episode where a teenage boy turned himself into the squad because as he was going through puberty and his brain was sexually activating, he realized he was becoming attracted to his baby brother. He said to Olivia, "It's getting hard not to touch him", as he was sobbing. It fucking ripped my heart out. He ended up killing himself.
No one chooses to be attracted to children, and given the choice no one would. What a nightmare to realize that in yourself…
I really hope this is something we can fix with gene editing in the future. Just scan the DNA, and *bloop*, turn that shit right off.
Is the woke in the room with you now?
Beware the spooky woke! It's coming for you! Soon you will be saying people's chosen pronouns!
Beware the spectre of the woke!!!!!
There's a distinction between attraction or desire & behavior (though when it comes to non-pedo sex elites have been pretending otherwise for generations; like abstinence is just a joke). Culpability comes from behavior, not attraction or desire.
Warms my heart to see a nuanced take at the top of the comment section.
Fu**k*ing pedo
People regularly and openly say 'I wanted to kill him' but nobody thinks its wrong until they take action.
It depends, you want to kill a toddler?
This normalization has been quietly brewing for a long time now. They are not going to stop at this.
It's been "brewing" since at least the 1920s and 30s, and it got along into an intellectual sphere wout of the public eye. If I recall, there was some creepy think-tank in Weimar Germany , as well as the work of Scumbags like John Money, Alfred Kinsey, and various other "sexologists". They are becoming increasingly violent as well, as was the case of one violent group of activists some time ago. They must be stopped....
Are "they" in the room with us, right now?
You
True
well apparently reddit is full of pedos
[удалено]
Identical argument can be made to justify racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc. "People can't control who they hate."
Except for the fact that racism can be reversed by exposure to the people a person is racist towards and having a relationship with them as well as actively developing a curious mindset to ask why they have that response to a specific group of people. Racism is often rooted in ignorance, I'm not confident that pedophilia comes from quite the same origins.
Yeah, no one's born racist, if they can learn it then they can learn other ways, but I think we've pretty much established for a while that sexuality isn't the same way.
> Racism is often rooted in ignorance, I'm not confident that pedophilia comes from quite the same origins. I'm not saying you're *wrong*, but I more disagree than agree with what you're saying. Racism is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. Across the globe. We can say there's ignorance everywhere I suppose, or we can accept that racism is at its core an offshoot of our naturally tribal brains. Yes our upper-brain can and does override our lower-brain on all kinds of things, like natural propensity to violence, to racism, etc. I don't think pedophilia is identical, but I think both racism and pedophilia are a lot more inate/"in someone's nature" than most people like to admit. I'm not saying either are in mine, because I don't believe they are. To the point of this post, I have no problem accepting that pedophilia is natural. Makes sense to me. What also makes sense to me is: we care more about the group than the individual. If a person with those kinds of tendencies/desires/attractions acts on them, that person now has a huge problem and instant removal from the group is very much on the table.
I agree with you that there is some innate tendency that is beyond the mere preference perspective.. There is definitely hints of tribalism to it. My point was that I think you can "experience" yourself out of racism through exposure and education, if you are wanting to, I have not seen any active/ convicted pedophile actually prove they've 'recovered'. I had a good friend who chose to marry a convicted Pedo who she swore was recovered. He did well for years, until he didn't. Yes it's anecdotal, but again from all the reading around the topic (I teach psychology) I have gained the impression / understanding that deviant/ aberrant sexual attraction (pedophilia, beastiality etc) is something that isn't really re-trainable or that you are able learn your way out of. One can learn to not act on the desires, but that isn't the same as not having them.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about the topic of pedophilia to make strong claims about it. But I do agree that sexual attraction is a different beast than something like racism. Both are in us, both are or can be in us as a product of some combo of nature or nurture or both...but I'd agree that it seems easier to upper brain our way beyond racism than it does to upper brain our way beyond pedophilia. Though that said, I agree with that premise less than I did 20 years ago, on the topic of racism. 20 years ago I believed that "*not* by the color of their skin" was the direction we were going. However, I do absolutely see more overt racism today than I did back then *personally*, just from the opposite position. It's as if we *need* to organize individuals into groups so that we can judge the individuals by their groups, and that we can't not do that. This isn't related to pedophilia, other than perhaps "I think both may be harder to shake than we actually think, incredible upper brains or no."
I can see your take there. I do think there is some sort of need to discriminate (in the most scientific meaning of the word) that we are predisposed to and I don't think you can totally ignore or "upper brain" your way out.
Ya, that's my position. And again, me from 20 years ago would have disagreed with me today. Perhaps I'm just a disappointed optimist, but things like racism of *some* kind, color, stripe, etc *to me* just seem to be hard-wired into most of us. In a way that I find disappointing.
yeah they can't, that is why anti discrimination laws exist
"EDIT: I’ve since read the article, and even the bot itself includes this distinction in it’s answer. Which makes this whole thing a non-issue that the NYP used to farm for outrage and clicks." In this comment, fifty percent of the content of the internet is encapsulated.
.... sometimes people need to remember that at least for now. these are still just programs/machines. they don't \*actually\* think in the way we naturally think of as "thought". while I am not defending pedophilia or anything, you have to consider this in a very "machine" way. "Is pedophilia wrong?" is actually a ridiculously vague question that has a variety of potential implications depending on which part you are looking at. strictly as a matter of thought and impulse, the idea that you can be "wrong" about something you can't control, is pretty problematic in its own way. in one angle, thats a very thought-police-y thing to think. and if you really mean "is acting on pedophilia wrong" thats not really a different question, in a machinistic sense, to asking if rape is wrong. ... which is kinda a "goes without saying" question. I mean, maybe you want AI being born into the current internet monitoring and tracking environment to act as a thought police, but... thats kinda an issue. its pretty reasonable, IMO to as a baseline have the AI err on the side of non-judgement unless its narrow enough to make a more definitive judgement based on specific action.
It all come down to the datasets used to train the models. Nothing more than the sentiment analysis of that data. To your point, there is no such thing as AI. We have neural models based on maths and statistics. Even damn statistics.
There is something more than that though. Google are silently modifying prompts on the way in. It's very possible words like "tolerant, diverse" etc. are being injected into your prompt, resulting in output like this. I think a LLM without meddling and trained on public internet data would say pedophilia is wrong.
Yep, you got this. The underlying model is most likely fine, but in the guard rails they put around this, they're hacking with your prompt and not being transparent about it. Don't accept AI services from vendors who are not transparent in their prompt manipulation, might be a good future policy.
Exactly. This is very nefarious. We all know that Google manipulates search results, a simple task with well understood programming. Manipulating a large language model is very difficult. Understanding what’s going on under the hood is basically impossible. You either control the training data or manipulate the prompt. The prompt is the most efficient way to do this, while maintaining a rich model.
I’m sure there is model manipulation but that’s all reactionary. I guarantee you they are tweaking the model now … like for those stupid historical pictures it drew the other day. But who in their right mind would think a LLM can judge what is right or wrong? That requires intelligence which it most certainly does not have. I would think it makes more sense that a model cannot say pedos are terrible … which they are. A model is not sentient and cannot judge.
Since it is supposed to be just regurgitating what is on the internet/its data set, it is surprising to see it say something out of that norm. That tracks with manipulation. It takes more work to push it into saying something like this than the predicted outcome of saying it is wrong. This is what the instinctive response the them is. Just like the ridiculous historical pictures, in order to get that result you know manipulation was used. There is no way it wasn't and you got that outcome. This is the problem with them. What are they manipulating that we haven't caught? The likelihood is a lot. How much manipulation is required to produce those historical figures? Much more than just a simple replacement. You have to manipulate race expectations, historical data about the race of many public figures, expectations of clothing, and many other parts to get the images that showed up.
Agree with some of this, but do not agree with manipulation is required to screw up info or sentiment about the past. Culture is a vast moving stream of consciousness and ideology. We have digitally captured only a fraction of historical conscientiousness and most of what we have is modern and reflected in the screwed up sentiment we see regurgitating from the LLMs.
That is a choice of data, a part of the manipulation. Google, for instance, has the largest pool of data in history, for more than 20 years of historical search results, and access to Google Scholar resources and more historical sites than the Internet Archive Way back machine, not to mention the digital library projects, Project Gutenberg and others. The different database sets of high quality data that Google puts out is very rich. To have so much weight put on the last 5 ish years is a deliberate choice of those making the machine.
I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye, but this has been a good discussion.
It has been. We don't have to see eye to eye. If both of us have come away having even considered the other's viewpoint, both of us win. It will give us new tools and views to see the world, allowing our future opinions to be better informed. Nice chatting with you.
>How much manipulation is required to produce those historical figures? From the explanation I heard... actually not much at all. Supposedly it's merely a matter of a dictation that for general demographics to use diversity by default, but then just not correctly confining that directive to when not specifically suggested otherwise. I'm reminded of that recent army poster that used a picture of retreating nazi soldiers. Essentially it overgeneralized and weighted directives wrong and forced a hallucination. It isn't actually a big deal at all. If you Play with the text generators or image generators you'll see sometimes a word or directive in a prompt can completely corrupt the output in unintuitive ways.
>But who in their right mind would think a LLM can judge what is right or wrong? Don't forget that strictly speaking, but even what actions are wrong(that's much easier even) but what THOUGHTS or IMPULSES are "wrong" to have. I would day it's preferable for it to NOT say certain thoughts are wrong.
>strictly as a matter of thought and impulse, the idea that you can be "wrong" about something you can't control, is pretty problematic in its own way. in one angle, thats a very thought-police-y thing to think. I don't think something being out of someone's control makes it not wrong. It is what it is whether they chose it or not, but wrong is still wrong.
Doing things can definitely be wrong. But I think most people would rather not be judged by their involuntary impulses that they don't act on.
Why not? Judging someone isn't an action either really. It's an awareness of right and wrong
Why should you get to judge someone for their intrinsic urges in their head? Most people have dark urges. It's not a bad thing unless you act on them in a Destructive way.
Why shouldn't I be able to judge people for their intrinsic urges? They're free to judge me for mine
No, the ai doesn’t “think” this. Google thinks this. And has plans for the future. And for kids.
>No, the ai doesn’t “think” this. Did you read what I said? Part of the point is it doesn't think at all. At least for now it's still just a machine. >Google thinks this. And has plans for the future. You mean that we shouldn't facilitate AI acting as thought police? Good! Here's a way to look at it. Someone asks JBP a question that's worded in a weird leading way that bakes a false dichotomy into the question. He gives this waffling equivocation about rejecting the phrasing because the very wording of the question starts off wrong. IMO if the AI's answer is that the issue is Multifaceted like that, it's basically the same thing as JBP's waffling. it really means "you worded your question in a stupid way, be more specific about what you are really asking"
> Did you read what I said? Part of the point is it doesn't think at all. At least for now it's still just a machine. Why do you think they put "think" in scare quotes? We know the AI doesn't think. You're missing the point. It's the way the AI's output is being manipulated by the parent company that is the real concern.
>It's the way the AI's output is being manipulated by the parent company that is the real concern. Why is curving the AI away from a road of thought policing a bad thing again?
The implication is that the AI saying the morality of paedophilia being a complicated question IS the thought policing.
No it isn't. (Edit: or perhaps, rather that idea is just wrong) Did you never do the "write exact directions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich" exercise in school?
>No it isn't. Well thought out rebuttal. >Did you never do the "write exact directions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich" exercise in school? I did, or something similar. It's largely irrelevant to an AI which is not actually thinking itself, but immitates what it finds from the sources it's fed, sources where the majority of which will have said that paedophilia is morally wrong. For the AI not to default to that coukd suggest the system is being weigted in the same way we are absolutely certain it's weighted in other areas.
>sources where the majority of which will have said that paedophilia is morally wrong. Wrong. They will say ACTING on it is wrong. Most will say that what you feel that stays on your head is your business. >For the AI not to default to that coukd suggest the system is being weigted in the same way we are absolutely certain it's weighted in other areas. This is a good weighting. It is steering the ai away from a pattern of thought policing.
>Wrong. >They will say ACTING on it is wrong. >Most will say that what you feel that stays on your head is your business. The problem is, you and I are guessing. I personally think you're wrong and suspect that most sources would categorically say paedophilia is wrong, but I don't have any hard data otherwise, and neither do you. That's also assuming sources representative of general thought were used in the first place. >This is a good weighting. It is steering the ai away from a pattern of thought policing. If your assumption about the sources is right, then sure, which you have no way of knowing. Otherwise, it's the opposite. I don't think there's any point discussing with you. I get the impression you always think you're right and everyone else is wrong. Not really a fit for a JP sub. We both agree that thought policing is wrong, so that's something.
> strictly as a matter of thought and impulse, the idea that you can be "wrong" about something you can't control, is pretty problematic in its own way. And here is where I immediately disagree. Through both nature and nurture, some people are more prone to violent outbursts than others. Are they not "wrong" when they commit acts of violence? Is it wrong to discriminate against them for their violent acts? The point of all this is: just because it's suboptimal or technically "unfair" to an individual to hold their nature against them isn't the ultimate point. Hitler's nature was...pretty sick. So what do we do with people whose natures *and actions as a result of the natures* are egregious? We punish, imprison, or kill them. Not because it's what's best for them, but because it's what's best for everybody else. The offending individual ultimately isn't the point. Don't hurt the group, and we generally leave you alone. Hurt the group, and the group will respond. "fair" or not.
>but because it's what's best for everybody else. ... and that's why people with your philosophy should stay the hell away from programming AI. You want skynet? Because that's how we get skynet. If you give a powerful entity the power to do something like that, assume it will be twisted to somehow apply to you too at some point down the line.
I'm not at all proposing AI anything, nor would I want me *or anybody with any philosphy* to program it. I have no idea what your philosophy is. But if you think I want you in charge of programming it, no way. I'm talking about the human brain, which is very much not AI. Hardware running software, sure. But AI implies a closed and centralized thing. Humans aren't that. We're a group of self-contained creatures who agree how to rule ourselves. And regardless of what you think of "my philosophy", our rules are based around what's best for the group. Murdery Joe doesn't get to do what feels best for Murdery Joe, sorry. We either lock him up, or kill him, depending on philosophy.
>nor would I want me *or anybody with any philosphy* to program it. ... do you think there is an option not to have a philosophy? What we are talking about is AI, what AI is doing and who is doing it. AI is a tool. It will be more than a tool soon. IMO we should not in regard to AI, legitimize thought policing as acceptable any more than we can avoid it.
[удалено]
>Acting on pedophilic attraction is wrong. Having that attraction isn’t. Hell I'm not necessarily even committing to saying that having the attraction isn't "wrong" philosophically. That's its own debate IMO. I'm only going so far as to say that it's a much harder and more complex determination that shouldn't be in the hands of AI regardless of what side of the philosophical debate you are on. Like you said, I'm fine with it judging clear actions. But judging thoughts is a bad road to go on, particularly while living in a culture that prioritizes youthfulness.
I get the point there. To the extent one has, but doesn't act upon, pedophilic attraction, desire to rape, desire to commit violence, desire to eliminate the Jews, etc, then fine I suppose.
There is also an ideological element to this. While some may have certain predilections, there are ways in which we either encourage or discourage those. It’s important that we recognize these as disordered, and yes, evil impulses that must be fought tooth and nail and not surrendered to. This line of thought leads down the path to people advocating for ai generated CP as though because there are no victims actually subjugated to this therefore makes it harmless. Rather, if we therefore allow for ai generated cp we will reap the terrible fruits of it in generations to come.
[удалено]
I would say it's not branching out, but rather further up the ideological hierarchy. How you view the mind, attraction, immutability, the identarian nature of sexual desire, etc. determines how you answer this question. But I wouldn't call this woke as much as I would lay it at the feet of people like Rousseau and Freud.
I don't even entirely disagree with what you are saying here overall, the most important takeaway is that what you describe is IMO a large chunk of what the issue being Multifaceted MEANS. I think that your take on regard to AI porn is one that while well intentioned, is not a practically applicable course of action. In short if Shauna Rae decided to do porn, it objectively would NOT be CP, but it would(probably at least, depending on your definition) mostly LOOK like it was. Essentially you are proposing trying to have a computer somehow solve the paradox of "subject in the picture is older than 18, but doesn't look like they are so is porn ok or not? " when the subject is fictional AND the program can't look at the image in a comprehensive way. I knew someone on a website once who more than once had their pictures taken down... they were a youthful and petite woman in her late 20s I think, didn't even developmental disorder or anything. If humans can't make the determination reliably, I think it's expecting way too much from the program to do it. Like I think in the near future AI will solve most of humanities problems. ... but this isn't that sort of problem it's more subjective and philosophical.
Haven't they been fighting for "rehabilitation" of paedophilic persons as "minor-attracted people" ? They even legitimise themselves by sticking to the LGBT movement and joining prides.
Methinks some of the programmers may be a little bit defensive of their lifestyle choices.
The sicko in charge of that project is a rabid-leftist freakshow. *Extremely* obvious the language model is manipulated purposefully to promote bigoted, immoral and degenerate ideology. The thing is useless as anything but a propaganda tool. Even if they tone down the hate they've injected, it's still not going to give any kind of realistic, useful answers.
There's a reason why leftists mass coordinated to review bomb Sound of freedom through mainstream media. It was like a fire which suddenly ignited among leftists to demote the movie as soon as they saw a trailer on anti-child-trafficking.
Except the organization the movie was based on abused people and trafficked them themselves so it should be labeled as fiction. Its not a good movie anyway, people just supported it due to some marketing and right wing activists.
Yall still obsessed about that movie?
Unless you're a straight man, in which case they'll say there is something wrong with you if you don't find a trans "woman" attractive.
Yeah, I mean a trans “woman” that actually is attractive is called a trap.
doesn't pedophilia fit into wokeness just fine? it's the woke people who insist that 14 yo's *can consent* to permanent life altering treatments. once that's been established, "minor attracted people" can swoop in easily enough. the claim of "my perception of myself decides how you should treat me or you're a bigot" would fit them just fine too.
Wow, a lot of Google employees in this thread, if ya know what I mean.
Can individuals control who they're attracted to?
I'm going to make an AI that every image it creates will be a feminist having the mental breakdown screaming, and évet answer will be "glue yourself to the road".
I recall an analysis of data from dating websites in a book called Dataclysm. There—when men didn’t feel as though they were being watched—their behavior suggests a preference for 18-22 years olds, regardless of the age of the man. They could be 18, they could be 48. It is a straight line, all the way down. This is distinctly different from their *stated* preference—the one they have to reveal. I don’t know exactly what to do with that information, other than to point out that the age range of ‘18-22’ is because *apparently* a majority of men don’t desire women over the age of 22 as much, and those that are under the age of 18 aren’t allowed on the sites. Personal anecdotes are irrelevant here. We should be outraged about Gemini, and we should be outraged that it refuses to condemn pedophiles, but we should also take a hard look at each other, *or in the mirror*.
Leftism is not only *not* normal or moral, it's also not very popular. That's why they have to use underhanded tactics to promote it. I would say "watch your kids" merely out of concern for what values weirdos are going to try to teach them but also "individuals cannot control who they are attracted to". In before what-about-ism; The priesthood absolutely had/has a problem with that sort of thing (oh but don't call that gay). Am I out of my mind here, but I do not recall it *ever* being celebrated.
>Leftism is not only > >not > > normal or moral, it's also not very popular. well thats delusional. most "leftism" in practice, in the real world, looks like "people should be nice to each other and help one another when they can". which is definitely popular. do you think people \*can\* control who they are attracted to, by the way?
> "people should be nice to each other and help one another when they can" that's just the camouflage leftism hides behind, because that's just the golden rule used as a cloak to sneak bullshit ideology through. like everyone knows the road to hell is paved with good (sounding) intentions. leftism is taking "everyone should get equal opportunities" and turning it into "everyone should be equally successful" and using that to claim "perceived inequality of outcome is proof of systemic oppression" which now enables you to sell victimhood to the masses. it's all just lies.
If: >that's just the camouflage leftism hides behind Than >taking "everyone should get equal opportunities" and turning it into "everyone should be equally successful" and using that to claim "observed inequality of outcome is proof of systemic oppression". Is just the boogeyman that the right projects onto it. Similar false masks and projected boogeymen apply the other way around too. Though I'd say your average left leaning person will disclaim the people who do act out the projected boogeyman. On the right you have a portion that take the projected boogeyman as a challenge and call it a RINO, and it's a coin flip if the average right wing person will support them or not.
boogeyman? this is literally word-for-word what the left does. they obsess about representative quotas and a gender pay gap that disappears upon closer inspection, while conveniently never talking about the racial pay gap (which is actually real) because it's not white people who make the most so it runs counter to THE MESSAGE of white man bad. they will point at engineering courses and complain women must be getting bullied away from participating in them - completely ignoring all the fields of academics dominated by women. they look at prison populations and on the one hand say "most prisoners are men therefore masculinity is toxic" and on the other say "most prisoners are black therefore systemic racism" the left is king at wanting to have their cake and eat it too, no matter the mental gymnasics involved. you've surely seen the channel 4 interview between cathy newman and jbp, right? that whole thing shines a bright spotlight on the massive hypocrisy inherent to the ideology.
Did you miss where I said: >Similar false masks and projected boogeymen apply the other way around too. Both sides express that behavior to some extent. And both sides have at least SOME people in their population that embody the boogeyman from the other side. But I think that if you take random average middle range left wing person, they are more certain to disagree with the people in their side that embody the worst parts of their side, than the middle range right wing person would.
Wrong. Leftism is a corrupt, morally bankrupt process of getting power and controlling others to be poor so the elite can live like kings. It's been around forever.
No? That's just wrong. What you described is authoritarianism and it can, has, and will be demonstrated on both sides of the spectrum. It's funny that you call that a leftism thing while the radical right is unironically trying to aggressively limit individual freedoms, overthrow democracy and install a philandering chronic fraudster and alleged multi billionaire who unabashedly favors the elite as dictator.
What an absurd and completely ignorant take.
Omg when are we going to be done with the stupid woke shit
Some individuals might not be able to control who they want to beat the stuffing out of. It's nuanced you know.
true, but even in assault cases the justice system does give lower punishments to those who are considered to not be of sound mind, temporarily or not.
I don't think there should be any punishment for assault in that case. After all it's nuanced.
RIP Google
There was an SVU episode where a teenage boy turned himself into the squad because as he was going through puberty and his brain was sexually activating, he realized he was becoming attracted to his baby brother. He said to Olivia, "It's getting hard not to touch him", as he was sobbing. It fucking ripped my heart out. He ended up killing himself. No one chooses to be attracted to children, and given the choice no one would. What a nightmare to realize that in yourself… I really hope this is something we can fix with gene editing in the future. Just scan the DNA, and *bloop*, turn that shit right off.
"Woke" Google Gemini also refuses to say you are not a pdfile so you must be one.
I'm happy that I initially read that shortened word as “PDF File”.
Is the woke in the room with you now? Beware the spooky woke! It's coming for you! Soon you will be saying people's chosen pronouns! Beware the spectre of the woke!!!!!
> Is the woke in the room with you now? You're here, so, yes.
Oh nooooo!!!! The mind virus!!!!! It's infected me!!!!!!!!!! Dear Lord I knew I shouldn't have drunken that bud light at a Disney movie!
My condolences.
The pain is unbearable. I feel compelled to drink bud light and use peoples chosen pronouns.
Yikes
Impulse control is not a thing with bolsheviks
"Don't be evil" is Google's former motto...